Saktijit Dey ORDER
Saktijit Dey, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 04.01.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 issued in the case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and illegal and, therefore, the said notice along with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer is contrary to specific provisions of section 147 to 151 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the said reassessment proceeding initiated along with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the foundation of such proceeding are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 35,63,423/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sundry creditors.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 35,63,423/- made by the Assessing Officer is beyond the scope of jurisdiction and provisions of section 147/148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and export of garments. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs. 11,82,236. The return of income filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 29.12.2011 determining the total income at Rs. 3,68,99,746.
4. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal.
5. As observed by the assessing officer, while deciding the appeal the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. Therefore, the department went in appeal to Hon'ble High Court. Be that a it may, subsequently, the assessing officer on examining the assessment record, found that one of the sundry creditors, namely, M/s. Goldplus Fabrics with aggregate credit amount of Rs. 35,63,423 had not filed any confirmation of accounts. However, no addition of such amount was made while completing the original assessment. Based on such reasoning, the assessing officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the reopening of assessment, however, rejecting the objection of the assessee, the assessing officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 147/143(3) of the Act by adding back the amount of Rs. 35,63,423. The addition made was also sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Before me, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment was after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. He submitted, since, the original assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing offic........